Teacher suspended for giving zeros - Page 19

On June 04 2012 00:46 Warble wrote:
My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.

This trend includes:

• Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
  
  
• Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
  
  
• Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
  

The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.

Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:

• Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
  
  
• We're basically talking about young people here.
  
  
• As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
  
  
• Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
  
  
• My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
  
  
• Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
  
  
• The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
  
  
• The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
  
  
• Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
  
  
• I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
  
  
• This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
  
  
• Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
  

I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.

On June 04 2012 00:46 Warble wrote:
My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.

This trend includes:

• Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
  
  
• Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
  
  
• Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
  

The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.

Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:

• Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
  
  
• We're basically talking about young people here.
  
  
• As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
  
  
• Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
  
  
• My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
  
  
• Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
  
  
• The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
  
  
• The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
  
  
• Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
  
  
• I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
  
  
• This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
  
  
• Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
  

I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.

On June 04 2012 00:46 Warble wrote:
My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.

This trend includes:

• Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
  
  
• Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
  
  
• Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
  

The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.

Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:

• Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
  
  
• We're basically talking about young people here.
  
  
• As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
  
  
• Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
  
  
• My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
  
  
• Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
  
  
• The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
  
  
• The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
  
  
• Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
  
  
• I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
  
  
• This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
  
  
• Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
  

I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.

On June 04 2012 10:02 Zahir wrote:


Thanks for taking the time to make such a great, reasoned post. You said was what in my head better than I couldve said it.

I wish more people would realize that simply imposing "workplace" standards in the classroom does not necessarily make for better education. The adult world actually offers extraordinary freedom as far as what type of work one wants to do, what type of environment, what coworkers... Sure the standards are tough, but the point is you have choices. In school your every moment is regulated, your work is mostly rote busywork, and you are forced to take classes and do assignments you have zero interest in. You don't even get paid. Yeah theres benefits, but foresight and wisdom are traits that develop with age and experience. Sometimes all kids can see or feel is the negative that is right there in front of them. No choice, no immediate compensation, no sympathy at all from those who want to "prepare" you for the real world by imposing conditions very few adults would willingly tolerate.

This no zeroes policy may be a step in the wrong direction, but trying to turn education into some sort of factory floor or totalitarian, hive like office is a giant leap backwards. I for one believe we can find a system that does more than emulate the harsher aspects of the workplace, but also its empowering and fulfilling side. While this rule probably does nothing to take us there, it should still be something we aim for.

On June 04 2012 10:02 Zalithian wrote:
Got 100% of the material right. Gets a 100.

Did 0% of the assignment. Got 0% of the assignment correct. Got a zero.

Doesn't seem arbitrary to me.

On June 04 2012 10:08 micronesia wrote:

On that scale, 65% (or 60 or whatever) being passing is what's arbitrary.

On June 04 2012 10:30 Zalithian wrote:


It's not actually arbitrary, although I'm sure there could be arguments for it being a different number.

On June 04 2012 10:33 micronesia wrote:

If it's not arbitrary then please explain why/how.

On June 04 2012 10:43 Brotossly wrote:
My policy on homework is that it should be employed only to increase understanding of the topic. Therefore, I believe the amount of work to be done should be dependent on the individual, and therefore not gradable. I don't find it particularly reasonable that I should be given a lower term grade because I didn't do the homework, and yet managed to get an A on every test. Why should I do work that I don't need to?

This policy only extends towards homework, I still do all my other work. I refuse to do homework; every class I take in high school requires that homework be worth 15% of the grade, and yet I maintain at least an 80% in every class.

On June 03 2012 01:53 Disengaged wrote:
The teacher had every right to give the students zeros for not doing the work.

On June 04 2012 00:46 Warble wrote:
My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.

This trend includes:

• Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
  
  
• Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
  
  
• Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
  

The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.

Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:

• Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
  
  
• We're basically talking about young people here.
  
  
• As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
  
  
• Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
  
  
• My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
  
  
• Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
  
  
• The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
  
  
• The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
  
  
• Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
  
  
• I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
  
  
• This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
  
  
• Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
  

I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.